Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] Staff & Legal Assessements on "Internet Numbers review by AFRINIC"'s Proposal

David Hilario d.hilario at
Wed May 17 07:28:33 UTC 2017

Hi Alan,

Just a small reminder and some more information.

The previous assessment which can still be found here:

>"AFRINIC staff workload may be greatly increased by a large number of requests for review or audit. >The requirement that the complaint "warrants investigation" may mitigate this issue, if staff have the >ability to decide that certain complaints do not warrant investigation, but staff resources will nevertheless >be expended on determining whether or not the complaint warrants investigation."

This one had a dramatically opposite view of the potential impact on
staff's workload compared to the latest one.

Can we know what changed on the assessment to go from:
"staff workload may be greatly increased"

"no significant impact to staff workload"

Assessments are needed by the community to judge some of the impacts
on the organisation itself.

How did we go from greatly increase to no significant impact?
What changed?

I understand that opinions change, but this is a total reversal.

David Hilario

IP Manager

Larus Cloud Service Limited

p: +852 29888918  m: +359 89 764 1784
f: +852 29888068
a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR
e: d.hilario at

On 15 May 2017 at 08:00, David Hilario <d.hilario at> wrote:
> Hi Alan,
> Thanks for the quick explanation.
> Can you please also answer the following.
> Since "First in first out" is not a way to measure workload, but a work
> method.
> How was it concluded no significant increase in workload?
> How many random audits will AFRINIC LTD be planning per year?
> Cheers,
> David
> On May 13, 2017 7:36 PM, "Alan Barrett" <alan.barrett at> wrote:
>> > On 12 May 2017, at 18:32, Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Co-Chairs, Dear community,
>> >
>> > After reading and analyzing the staff analysis, we realized that it was
>> > totally different from the first staff analysis. Then a question came to
>> > mind, why a new staff analysis for the same policy, even though all updates
>> > are made to address the old staff analysis and discussions on the PDPWG.
>> The new staff analysis is for the new version of the proposal.  Some of
>> the changes in the analysis are due to changes in the proposal, and some are
>> due to changes in staff understanding or opinion.
>> Alan Barrett
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at

More information about the RPD mailing list